TBD on Ning
America's Great Leap Forward
Those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2007, his backers frequently compared him to former president John F. Kennedy. After a year in office, however, President Obama's words and actions align more closely with China's despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK's.
When Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world. When Obama was elected President, many started referring to him as President of the World. Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path of radical change.
As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top echelon, "There has to be a personality cult...it is absolutely necessary."* With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic image of himself as the savior of the common man. Propoganda was everywhere - including the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they worked. Sound familiar?
In 1958, Mao kicked off what he called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention in China's economic development. Mao planned to abolish wages and put society on a non-cash basis. He then set about abolishing private property.
The ownership of tools, animals, and other means of production were taken over by the state - in the name of the people. Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance industries of today have been taken over by our government.
Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China's health care. The 'state' determined who would receive this essential service. The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that they could be looked after - by the state. Much like the proposed government takeover of America's health care today.
Chairman Mao's government also plunged the country into a deep debt by drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry. But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive scale without producing anything of value. Much like the bloated government behemoth Obama's policies are producing today.
Mao, through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on China. Just as Obama has today.
Mao believed that collectivizing agriculture would lead to a new 'utopia.' Obama's campaign promise of 'equality' for all Americans is the modern vision of Mao's utopia. Which, by the way, not only failed, but failed spectacularly.
One year after Mao launched China's Great Leap Forward, things in China started to go wrong. Politics increasingly took precedence over commonsense. Mao's utopian dream turned into a nightmare as the central leadership grew increasingly out of touch with reality.
By the spring of 1959, in theory China was awash in grain. In reality, it was not. Rural communal mess halls that had been handing out free food, ran out of food. China's grain reserves were exhausted and the famine began.
Scholars have estimated that somewhere between 16.5 million and 40 million people died before Mao's experiment came to an end in 1961, making the Great Leap famine the largest in world history. Even Mao himself was forced to acknowledge that he had been wrong. Oops.
By late 1960, private ownership of land was reinstated and a modicum of capitalism was re-introduced. Peasants were finally given incentives to produce as much spare food as was possible by allowing them to sell their excess on the open market. Socialism had failed, yet again.
Chairman Mao never had to pay the price for his failed social engineering. The Chinese people paid it for him. Leaving Mao free to regroup, repair his image, and emerge back on the national scene in 1966 with yet another bold plan. The cultural revolution - which resulted in yet another failed social experiment and untold human suffering. The beat goes on.
The similarities between Chairman Mao and President Obama are too numerous to ignore. Like Obama, Mao's philosophy of how to 'change' China was clear from the outset. "...the country must be...destroyed and then reformed." "People like me long for the destruction because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn't that better?" Quick - who said that? Mao, or Obama's buddy Bill Ayers? Answer: Both.
All of Obama's actions as president to date reflect the same mindset - the destruction of traditional values, the unwillingness to learn from history, the utter reliance on theory instead of reality. And the belief that man takes precedence over God and thus has the ability to shape reality according to man's whim.
Hubris and a charismatic personality allowed both Mao and Obama the freedom to implement costly social and economic 'change.' Change which is not change at all, but another futile attempt to revive the failed model of socialism.
Like Mao, Obama will most likely never be held to account when the socialist, big government policies he has championed fail. And fail they must. History shows us that. The American people will, once again, be forced to pay the very real price for Obama's naive attempt to redefine reality to his own specifications.
* Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
When Barack Obama was campaigning for president in 2007, his backers frequently compared him to former president John F. Kennedy. After a year in office, however, President Obama's words and actions align more closely with China's despotic Chairman Mao than with JFK's.
When Mao Tse Tung conquered China in 1949, his secret goal was to dominate the world. When Obama was elected President, many started referring to him as President of the World. Both Obama and Mao had carte blanche to set out a path of radical change.
As part of his strategy, Mao informed his top echelon, "There has to be a personality cult...it is absolutely necessary."* With the aid of the state media, Mao crafted an iconic image of himself as the savior of the common man. Propoganda was everywhere - including the fields where workers could listen to messages from Mao as they worked. Sound familiar?
In 1958, Mao kicked off what he called The Great Leap Forward, an extraordinarily creative intervention in China's economic development. Mao planned to abolish wages and put society on a non-cash basis. He then set about abolishing private property.
The ownership of tools, animals, and other means of production were taken over by the state - in the name of the people. Just as the ownership of the auto, banking and insurance industries of today have been taken over by our government.
Chairman Mao, in the name of the people, also took over China's health care. The 'state' determined who would receive this essential service. The elderly were moved into "houses of happiness" so that they could be looked after - by the state. Much like the proposed government takeover of America's health care today.
Chairman Mao's government also plunged the country into a deep debt by drastically increasing spending on the development of heavy industry. But the state-sponsored industry that developed was not only non-productive, it ended up wasting money and resources on a massive scale without producing anything of value. Much like the bloated government behemoth Obama's policies are producing today.
Mao, through a cult of personality and firm control of the levers of government, had the ability to impose his own version of reality on China. Just as Obama has today.
Mao believed that collectivizing agriculture would lead to a new 'utopia.' Obama's campaign promise of 'equality' for all Americans is the modern vision of Mao's utopia. Which, by the way, not only failed, but failed spectacularly.
One year after Mao launched China's Great Leap Forward, things in China started to go wrong. Politics increasingly took precedence over commonsense. Mao's utopian dream turned into a nightmare as the central leadership grew increasingly out of touch with reality.
By the spring of 1959, in theory China was awash in grain. In reality, it was not. Rural communal mess halls that had been handing out free food, ran out of food. China's grain reserves were exhausted and the famine began.
Scholars have estimated that somewhere between 16.5 million and 40 million people died before Mao's experiment came to an end in 1961, making the Great Leap famine the largest in world history. Even Mao himself was forced to acknowledge that he had been wrong. Oops.
By late 1960, private ownership of land was reinstated and a modicum of capitalism was re-introduced. Peasants were finally given incentives to produce as much spare food as was possible by allowing them to sell their excess on the open market. Socialism had failed, yet again.
Chairman Mao never had to pay the price for his failed social engineering. The Chinese people paid it for him. Leaving Mao free to regroup, repair his image, and emerge back on the national scene in 1966 with yet another bold plan. The cultural revolution - which resulted in yet another failed social experiment and untold human suffering. The beat goes on.
The similarities between Chairman Mao and President Obama are too numerous to ignore. Like Obama, Mao's philosophy of how to 'change' China was clear from the outset. "...the country must be...destroyed and then reformed." "People like me long for the destruction because when the old universe is destroyed, a new universe will be formed. Isn't that better?" Quick - who said that? Mao, or Obama's buddy Bill Ayers? Answer: Both.
All of Obama's actions as president to date reflect the same mindset - the destruction of traditional values, the unwillingness to learn from history, the utter reliance on theory instead of reality. And the belief that man takes precedence over God and thus has the ability to shape reality according to man's whim.
Hubris and a charismatic personality allowed both Mao and Obama the freedom to implement costly social and economic 'change.' Change which is not change at all, but another futile attempt to revive the failed model of socialism.
Like Mao, Obama will most likely never be held to account when the socialist, big government policies he has championed fail. And fail they must. History shows us that. The American people will, once again, be forced to pay the very real price for Obama's naive attempt to redefine reality to his own specifications.
* Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina
Comment
-
Comment by Nancy Morgan on December 16, 2009 at 2:17am
-
"Caring about the poor is destruction of traditional values? Wanting to see more people with health Care is theory instead of reality? Why cant it be reality?..It is in other countries. I think history is exactly the reason we need change....Duh!"
Caring for the poor by extorting other people's money is not charity.
And, regards Bill Ayers, you can tell much about a person by the company he keeps.
-
Comment by caseyjo on December 8, 2009 at 10:21am
-
What facts? Bill Ayers said something..what does that have to do with Obama?..Jeez....Guilt by association...right?
Nancy said...."Hubris and a charismatic personality allowed both Mao and Obama the freedom to implement costly social and economic 'change.' .......Caseyjo states: Here you are saying Hubris and personality allow people to implement costly social and economic change. No Joking about personality..It does help millions of people in this life. That may be PARTIALLY true in the case of Mao & Obama and Millions of other people, plus so many other factors you have not mentioned....It remains to be seen in the case of Obama if his changes effect us in a negative way. You are putting down the intelligence of the young people in our country & everyone else who voted him in. ..I think he was voted in because of his smarts first and he gave us hope....We have been stagnating for years now.
Nancy said.."All of Obama's actions as president to date reflect the same mindset - the destruction of traditional values, the unwillingness to learn from history, the utter reliance on theory instead of reality. And the belief that man takes precedence over God and thus has the ability to shape reality according to man's whim."
CaseyJo states: Nancys part about Man taking precedence over God and shapeing reality according to his will, is exactly what I see you doing Nancy..That and then some....Laughing hilariously
Caring about the poor is destruction of traditional values? Wanting to see more people with health Care is theory instead of reality? Why cant it be reality?..It is in other countries. I think history is exactly the reason we need change....Duh!
-
-
Yada yada yada - when will someone on this thread actually address the facts outlined in the article I posted?
Calling names and trying to undermine the messenger is not debate - its intellectual laziness. I notice no-one has disputed the facts. Helloooo....
-
Comment by Bull on December 7, 2009 at 7:26pm
-
The article you referenced as proof that I lied was Not posted by me.
This statement alone should give everyone pause to your credibility. We are talking about this article,correct?
http://thereaganwing.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/a-conservative-in-los...
That certainly looks like your name attached to it.
-
-
Bull,
I'm still waiting for your proof that I am not credible. Tick tock...
-
-
Jacquin,
Thanks for posting my articles. My goal is to make available the conservative POV and I appreciate your help.
I hope you read all of them and forward them to your friends. For all readers, you can access my archives at http://rightbias.com/news/bio.aspx
The more you click on my articles, the more influence I'll have. And isn't that the point? Isn't that why you all spend your time on sites like these? To make your voices heard? To influence the debate?
But I'm confused about one thing. Jacquin: I didn't see anything in the rule book about your assertion that when someone promotes their articles that it automatically renders the facts included in them moot.
BTW: How did you ever figure out that I'm coy? Are you, gasp, profiling?:)
-
-
Ms Morgan
Each piece I referenced had your name attached. If you didn't post it perhaps you should find out who did.
As far as discussing issues the piece you have posted here presents none. It appears to be a piece to get you posted on as many right wing blogs as possible.
-
-
Caseyjo states: "Oh Brother..Now I've heard everything...If you look hard enough to find fault, you will always find some. If you look for the good, you will find that too....Judy states:" Sorry, but there is nothing specific in this statement, and surely nothing to indicate she was wrong in her comments."
It all comes down to who's right and wrong..How do you determine that before a outcome? You can use history as a example, but unless all events of the period of time one is talking about are exactly the same today as it was during that period of time a person speaks of, you cannot make a righteous judgment..you can only speculate.
Scare tactics only confuse and anger people, and are not conductive to building a healthy society.
There is no such thing as fair trade in our country.....Ok you do my dirty work and I will pay you what you are worth...NO....It's all about do my dirty work and I am going to pay you as little as possible....Thats the trick the rich use to keep the little people in line...If you keep them living on the edge, they will do anything for a few dollars, then you blast commercials at them and make what you are selling sound like heaven, keep them wanting, keep them starving for what they don't have ..Thats how you control, add to that.....scare tactics...you basically get slaves without chains, then spin God, Jesus on top of all that and you get grateful devoted slaves without chains.
-
-
Bull,
Here I go again spending time debating non-issues.
The article you referenced as proof that I lied was Not posted by me. My statement stands and your nitpicking might be more useful if you focused your laser insight on the article under discussion instead of one I (finally) posted months ago, after originally deciding not to post it because it contained too many "I's"
Attacking someones' credibility is a serious matter, at least to conservatives. When you do, you should make sure you have your facts straight - otherwise your own credibility is called into question.
-
Comment by Judi on December 5, 2009 at 4:29pm
-
Well, caseyjo, Orianb is correct in that there really have not been any specific suggestions given to Nancy about this piece, other than she wasn't as tight as she should be in her comparisons with Mao.
For instance:
Bull states, "Then we have those who make it up and bend it to fit their own agenda, truth be damned.
Right Ms Morgan? " Okay, well this is fine, but what is she specifically making up? Where are the lies, Bull?
Blondie states: "I can not believe my eyes--this is bent--twisted " Okay, same thing . . . what is Ms. Morgan saying that is twisted?
Caseyjo states: "Oh Brother..Now I've heard everything...If you look hard enough to find fault, you will always find some. If you look for the good, you will find that too." Sorry, but there is nothing specific in this statement, and surely nothing to indicate she was wrong in her comments.
© 2024 Created by Aggie.
Powered by
You need to be a member of TBD to add comments!
Join TBD